Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Oral Abstinence; the Key to a Happy, Fulfilling and Joyous Marriage

Whilst doing a temple recommend interview last night I was asked by Sister McCulloch whether it was against the rules of the church to engage in the stimulation of the most sacred regions of ones holy temple whilst employing the use of ones lips and tongue. At first I was perplexed by the question, but then the spirit came to me and I said “just to clarify Sister McCulloch are you by any chance referring to intercourse of an oral variety and nature?” to which she hesitantly nodded. 

Local church leaders are not to ask married couples about their sexual practices and when members bring questions like this up we are to tell them that if it’s something they feel the need to bring up in an interview then perhaps the practice should be discontinued.

I told her that in my experience whenever these questions come up it is almost always the husband who is at fault. Why a priesthood holder would require such atrocities of a beautiful innocent sister like this is beyond my comprehension. If she were my wife I wouldn’t even think to make such a request. In fact I have never even approached Sister Paternoster with regards to intimacy unless invited and in the spirit of producing offspring unto the Lord.  Self control ought to be the guiding force amongst the brethren of the church.

I felt the issue would be better addressed as a couple so I asked the husband to come and join his sweet tender wife in my office.

I assured the couple that many men have fallen into the temptation of asking their wives to participate in acts that are degrading in nature. On this blog due to the sacred nature of the temple I cannot go into details but I did clarify with the couple that this is precisely why we make sacred oaths to not engage in impure and unholy practices.  

I took out from my desk a folder that the previous stake president had left behind on the subject that I have often benefited from in counseling with members.  I had Brother McCulloch read this quote from our loving Apostle Boyd K. Packer:
"What if the person asking you to engage in something defiling is your husband, whom you love? A married couple may be tempted to introduce things into their relationship which are unworthy. Do not, as the scriptures warn, 'change the natural use into that which is against nature' (Romans 1:26). If you do, the tempter will drive a wedge between you."

Brother McCulloch went completely red in the face as the Lord was teaching him through the reading of this quote. I hope that not wanting to drive a wedge between him and his wife will be enough to deter him from such base desires going forward. Divorce is so rampant these days and President Packer has given a very important clue here as to how to have a more fulfilling marriage.

We then read this quote which comes from a First Presidency letter with regards to interviewing. It was addressed to all leaders from Bishops up and is crystal clear in stating:
“The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”

The McCulloch’s asked to see the letter. I consider it every member’s right to know the position of our prophets, seers and revelators on this very important topic so I handed it to them and would be happy to post it here if requested.

We continued with a quote from a good friend of mine Elder Spencer J. Condie who said: "Unfortunately, some married couples fail to realize that sexual experiences were never intended by the Lord to be a mere plaything or merely to satisfy passions and lusts. When couples….participate in unholy practices, what should be a spiritually bonding element in their marriage may actually become a disruptive force.”

Here again we are learning from our leaders that a key to a successful marriage is staying away from unholy sexual practices.

I explained to the couple that sexual relations in marriage are not unrestrained. We must remember that life was not designed just for sex. Even marriage does not make proper certain extremes in sexual indulgence. The Lord's loving condemnation of sin included secret sexual sins in marriage when he revealed this to the pure hearted prophet Joseph Smith: "And those who are not pure…. shall be destroyed" (D&C 132:52)"

President Spencer W. Kimball said "If it is unnatural, you just don't do it. That is all, and all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane. There are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it."

President Howard W. Hunter said “Tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles in the intimate relationship between husband and wife. Any indecent or uncontrolled behavior in the intimate relationship between husband and wife is condemned by the Lord. Pornography and unwholesome fantasies erode one’s character and strike at the foundation of a happy marriage.”

I hope the message is clear to all readers. A happy marriage is based on controlled and disciplined intimate behavior, free from all unwholesome fantasies. Please don’t do anything that would allow Satan to ruin the foundation of your marriages.

I ended the interview with this quote from the aforementioned letter from the First Presidency which states that "Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices.”  Based on this instruction I asked the couple to report back in one month on their progress, after which I will be happy to sign their recommends.

Brothers and Sisters aren’t you thankful to the Lord that the apostles and prophets never waver on sin? No matter how strong the winds of public opinion may blow, the Church remains steadfast and immovable in protecting marriages and families against the wiles of the tempter.

President Paternoster

Since some of you have requested to see the letter of which I spoke I have edited this blog post and attached both pages below.  I apologize though that the lettering is so small. If anyone is good with photo editing and can enlarge this I will re-post.  I noticed if I click on the images twice they become readable. Allow me to quote directly from page 2 in case the lettering is too small for some: “In interviewing one for a temple recommend, the individual being interviewed should be reminded that the Lord has said that no unclean thing should enter His house…. Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices…… The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”
The letter is signed by the First Presidency including Gordon B. Hinckley




321 comments:

1 – 200 of 321   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Terrific post dude.

Anonymous said...

Speaking as a man, "it is better to give than receive". and receiving ain't half bad either. Allowing old men from a sexually repressed era to dictate your most intimate moments probably leads to more divorce than they'd care to admit.

anonymous said...

What a fantastic way to present such a sensitive issue!! Not having a wedge between us is so important that I always tell my Bishop and Stake President about my sexual inclinations and concerns as well as include them in my personal prayers to Christ. I know I can receive personal revelations on such matters but knowing I can talk to a mouthpiece of the Lord takes away any doubt or questions I may have about what is or is not appropriate in marriage. Who better to share such personal concerns with? One interview my husband was asked to join me just like the couple in your story, the Bishop asked him if we had done some very detailed things in order to determine our worthiness. Having a Bishop with such a knowledge of sexual practices was very enlightening to my husband; for if the Bishop knew of such things they must be alright, he was moved by the spirit and our evening was all the better after that interview.

Anonymous said...

President, I have a very embarrassing yet pertinent question I feel I must raise. As a daughter of Zion, I have always kept myself pure unto the Lord, which has led to some difficulties in the marital bed. My dear husband has discovered the key to unlocking my glorious God-given pleasure center is through his own oral skills. In fact, I cannot achieve a certain high point without such activity. If we follow our Lord's annointed's advice, I fear I shall never achieve sexual satisfaction again. What is more important do you think? Perhaps continue this practice and then repent once we are old and don't care about sex any more? Oh help me President, I am so torn!!

Insana D said...

Thankyou President Paternoster for this timely post. Often when a couple has been married for a while the intimate act becomes rather tedious and same and I suspect many are tempted to add a little spice to make it more engaging. I am past child bearing age now and so it's good to know that intimate relations are no longer necessary or sanctioned in the eyes of the Lord. I can assure my husband that a soft cuddle and gentle pat on the head should satisfy his need for affection and if he is vigilant in suppressing any other needs he will someday be as restrained as Elder Packer. Our goal should have been to emulate the late Elder Mark E. Petersen who righteously boasted that he had never seen his lovely wife in the nude. I'm afraid it's too late for that between my husband and I but perhaps with devotion to the holy garments and careful orchestration of turning the lights out before I go toward the bed or undress in any way I can help my own husband forget the sight of my own flesh.

Oh the rapture that must come from pure obedience to the laws of the Prophets. Someday perhaps my husband and I can become one, like Eunichs who no longer allow the passions of the flesh to invade our precious union.

Aurora said...

Wow! I had no idea the church leaders were so specific about what exactly was allowed in the bedrooms of married, consenting adults. I confess I was one of the people Spencer W. Kimball was talking about when he said some people believed that as long as both adults were willing, anything goes.

This just goes to show that we need modern revelation more than ever. These sorts of clarifications could never come from a casual reading of the Bible.

As a recent graduate from the Young Women's program I have not yet had the opportunity to degrade myself in such a manner. My chastity challenges are more along the lines of dressing modestly so I don't accidentally tempt my brethren into thinking unworthy thoughts. Still, this is good to know for when I do finally get married (soon I hope).

anonymous said...

Insana D,
I believe Mark E Peterson also sanctioned tying one's hand to the bedpost, we took it a bit further and tied both hands, thus rendering me completely helpless, such beautiful advice.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous "Oh help me President, I am so torn!!"

Have you considered that it's not the "Lord's anointed advice" to abstain in such manner, but rather bad advice overall?

In other words, IT'S NO SIN. It's God's gift of intimacy to you.

Don't let the Church guilt trip you.

Signed, married Christian who loves the LORD, Russ.

Macha said...

My husband never asked me, I just did it. And I never had to ask him either. :D Sex is better without religion http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/lifestyle/a/-/health/9481357/sex-is-better-without-religion-study/

Marymanard said...

define unnatural. . . I understand that if you feel degraded then it would be wrong to have your spouse ask and you to comply while being degraded. but even my dogs engage in Oral sexual activities. rather gross to see really dogs should get a hotel or something, but I would not consider it unnatural, in fact quite the opposite. but then it is the "natural" man that is an enemy to God. is this blog really from an LDS stake pres? I'd like to have references....

Russ said...

On second thought (after having read some of "Paternoster's" other posts, this looks page looks like a spoof.

A well-done spoof at that! Congrats!

Brigham Taft Pratt said...

Russ,
This blog is no spoof, so take your vile hatred of Godly things and depart! (Russ breaks the limb off of a tree as he stomps out of the scene).

Back to the topic at hand....I too have had to deal with unnatural urges in my own marriage. The first incident was actually the very evening of our sealing in the Holy Temple. After a brief calling reception held underneath the hoop on the church's basketball court (how romantic), we headed down the street to a local hotel. I was tired so I quickly prepared for bed. After I had read my scriptures and said my prayers, I was shocked to see my wife enter the room in a little black bra and lacy panties. As I had just been reading about the trappings of Sodom and Gomorrah in the second most correct book on earth, I was sickened to my stomach. I wasted no time chastising my young wife (only 18) for falling so easily into worldy temptation. She was very confused and told me that she thought we would be having sex. I reminded her that we had already discussed our plans to wait until she was 19 to attempt conception and that any sex outside of that righteous pursuit was more driven by worldly lust and pleasure. Soon she was back in her wholesome garments and sniffling quietly to herself as she turned out the lamp. I was grateful that my wife had been to the temple earlier that week or else she might not have known that she had to obey my righteous counsel. It's amazing how the Lord works through his holy prophets and the teachings of the temple to strengthen relationships.

Brigham Taft Pratt said...

Aurora,
You are lucky that you have found this site. You will learn a lot from the president's inspired posts if you read them with a broken heart and real intent. Please do not be discouraged if your single years drag into your twenties. The lord could be preparing you for a mission. You look like you could even qualify for a Temple Square mission.

GraceAlone71 said...

I too believe this whole blog is a "spoof".

Anonymous said...

Nonsense. If she was uncomfortable with it, then, yes, it shouldn't be practiced. However, if they are both wanting to be intimate in that way, leave them be. It's views like this that allow members to freak out when they see people drinking caffeine or watching r-rated movies. Remember, pride is not a good thing, and holier-than-thou members are too prevalent. You need to have taught the husband to rely on the Spirit of the Lord, rather than trying to embarrass him and make him feel ashamed...he committed no sin.

Anonymous said...

Brigham Taft,

I pray that you are being sarcastic....!!!

Aurora said...

The internet was inspired by God to allow us to do genealogy more efficiently and to produce Church-approved Youtube missionary messages. Sarcasm has no place on the internet, and I doubt Brother Taft would be using it on a stake president's blog, of all places.

Bro Taft, thank you for your words of encouragement. I've often thought about serving a Temple Square mission. It's like serving a mission for the entire world, minus the poverty and the dangerous parts, since you're mainly teaching tourists rich enough to travel to Salt Lake City. My only fear is that I will be too much of an old maid when I get home to get married. I'd be nearly 23...that's practically signing up to be the next Sheri Dew!

Anonymous said...

Aurora,

If this Taft guy is for real, I pray that his 'wife' leaves him...seriously, if he said that to her on his wedding night, then the guy is a complete piece of trash...I hope it is a joke.

Unsure in CA said...

President,

I have a question that I have been too embarrassed to ask my own Bishop: when my wife and I engage in (wholesome) procreative relations, how much lighting is permitted in the room? Lately I have been receiving impressions that the Lord desires us to unite in reproductive congress only in darkness (and never during daylight hours when our efforts could be used more productively to share the gospel or study the scriptures). Is this the Lord's will or am I just being Pharisaical? I would appreciate any counsel you can give.

Russ said...

"...how much lighting is permitted in the room?"

LOL. This place is great. Love it.

Sweetie said...

I believe it's a right God gave us, to turn over our free will to the wills of God's chosen servants so that we do not falter on our own thinking. (Or not.)

Since everything is given that we may have joy therein, doesn't it make sense what pres P said about sex? (Or not.)

Sweetie said...

Speaking of acts in darkness, pres please clarify. Aren't all our works supposed to be in the light, nothing to hide? I know my husband & I don't hide from each other.

Anonymous said...

Wow. This is one of the most powerful posts I have seen on this topic. I had no idea the First Presidency had sent out such a specific letter helping people understand the only pure way to use sexual energy. Oh, President PLEASE post the contents of this letter!

Cindy said...

Despite what some others have said I think you have dealt with this sensitive topic very well. Even though (as you stated at the beginning of your post) leaders are not supposed to ask married couples about their sexual practices I think it is important for them to be prepared to give guidance when asked. I'm sure that this was just as uncomfortable situation to you as is was to them but your obvious knowledge on this issue was probably a great help. I think it was kind of you to call in the husband so that this was not being discussed behind his back. I also think that is was important to let him know that he is not alone in this and that it is common for men to fall into this temptation (I wasn't even aware of that before now). I had not heard of all the specific quotes you put in this blog but their content have been constant with the things that I have been taught though out my years in the church. There have always been those that are a little more liberal or a little more conservative but most seem to agree with President Hunters council that “Any indecent or uncontrolled behavior in the intimate relationship between husband and wife is condemned by the Lord”. I was also counseled never to talk about anything intimate with anyone else but for the sake of this topic (and because no one here even knows me) I will say that My Husband and I have followed the counsel of President Hunter and the “issue” you raised in this blog has never even crossed our minds (at least I don't thing as we have never talked about) yet we have a beautiful relationship with each other.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with the Brethren that oral sex is unnatural. For the same reason, I don't brush my teeth, comb my hair, bathe, cut my hair, or wear a bra.

anonymous said...

"Oh, President PLEASE post the contents of this letter!"

I would like to see the letter as well.

anonymous said...

Unsure in CA,
The answer lies in previous comments:
"Elder Mark E. Petersen who righteously boasted that he had never seen his lovely wife in the nude."
The only way this could be possible is with little to no lighting.

Brigham Taft Pratt said...

I am absolutely serious. My wife would relate the story to you herself, but she is only allowed on the internet if she is doing geneology.

SunnyBunny said...

Brother Taft Pratt,

Are you a polygamous? Looking for another wife? Keep me posted.

Anonymous said...

I can only relate my own experience. I performed oral sex on my husband pretty much every time we had sex - in fact, our sex life was basically me performing oral sex on him, some brief penetration, and it was all over.
In the 25 years we were married, he only ever performed oral sex on me a handful of times.
I have now left the church, while he has remained active and goes to the temple every week (I stopped going to the temple a number of years ago.) And now, God has given him the revelation that he should divorce me. God also inspired him to tell our children before he told me.
So beware - if you perform oral sex on your husband, you might end up losing your faith.
I can only assume that is what happened to me.

Chris S said...

Anonymous, your story is very interesting. It leads me to believe that the spiritual consequences of giving oral sex are more severe than the consequences of receiving it. Why else would you have fallen away while your husband continues to flourish in the gospel?

Spencer L. Jensen said...

I also agree that as God's most glorious creations, we don't have to sink the level of beasts and their base sexual practices...Next thing you know, we might be procreating in the same position and duration as dogs!

I could not agree more about this issue's potential to drive a wedge between married couples. I don't want to reveal too much about my own sacred experiences, but let's just say that accommodating your wife's avoidance of the distasteful and the variety it promises has proven to be a key element of marital harmony.

Anonymous said...

you are NOT LDS, or if you are you are passing off phony information. I have checked with the LDS.org and in relation to your topic it says and I quote! "Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife."

Daryl Young said...

This is really amazing...Pres your comments are nothing more than opinion ...thats all, they are not official church doctrine, council or teachings. There is NO official church policy on anything you state. There is nothing scriptural or historically correct with anything you state here.

Let me refer everyone reading this blog what is official.

"Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage."

read full policy here: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1f53991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

In 1978, the First Presidency added a statement to the Temple recommend questions that indicated that those who had not repented of “impure, unholy, or unnatural sex acts” could not receive a recommend. (2) This obviously led to some uncomfortable conversations with bishops and the First Presidency released another letter in 1982 that stated that bishops “should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between man and his wife.”

While there is nothing wrong with you expressing your opinion, there is a violation of the policy of confidentiality as you have used the sisters name from your own stake.

Plus the URL name my lead people to believe that your blog is official church doctrine - these are your personal opinions and many things I have seen you write are not official church doctrine and I would say even plain wrong. This blog site is actually against church policy (see http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.1.22?lang=eng#211 )

If non LDS see your blog and think that’s what LDS teach no wonder they think we're weird.

Attention people: to have intimacy with your spouse only to have children is not church policy, and I believe is actually very strange and would create a strain on your relationship - If that’s how some people work in their relationship its up to them, its not a rule.

If intimacy stays between the man & wife there is no policy or church guidance in these matters. If it works in the marriage its great, if it doesn’t, its not.

Be loving & considerate is the real rule. If the act consensual, as long as no one feels pressured to do something you’re not comfortable with and not harmful for the body, then sexual life style should be decided between the husband & wife

Here is a link from a LDS sex therapist – notice that there is a disclaimer before entering her site – this blog should also contain this disclaimer as well as the disclaimer at the end of the article at #7

Brigham Taft Pratt said...

SunnyBunny,
Although polygamy constitutes the true order of celestial marriage, unfortunately it is not practised by the present day church. In the older days it was mostly used by the Lord as a means to take care of destitute widows and the occasional teenager. Today we have more bishops to do this sort of work (President Monson used to be a bishop and his widow stories are legendary). If the situation changes and the Lord sees fit to allow the holy practice again, I would certainly consider taking you on as a second wife. I imagine President Paternoster would probably be involved in the doling out of wives in our stake, so perhaps he could help us out. All in the Lord's time sister, all in te Lord's time.

Spencer said...

I feel for you! I was shocked as well when I first read these actual quotes from The Brethren and discovered 1) What oral sex is, and immediately therafter, 2) That we are never to partake.

Our leaders have no desire to be in the bedrooms of married (heterosexual) members. Nevertheless, our desires, appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set, and that all truth may be circumscribed unto one great hole.

And I bear testimony to you, from experiences more sacred than I can express, that the "one great hole" is the vagina, even the holiest of holies, Amen.

Chris S said...

Daryl Young,

Do you have any direct quotations from the Brethren to support your opinions? I, for one, have never raised my right arm to the square to sustain LDS.org as prophet, seer, and revelator.

I also wonder if you are a Stake President yourself. When you publicly challenge the actions of your Priesthood leaders, you unwittingly align yourself with the Enemies of the Lord's church.

Nephi taught that the wicked take the truth to be hard. Are you not, perhaps, trying to justify this sinful practice in your own life?

Anonymous said...

This isn't far off at all:

http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/spencer-kimball-teachings.htm

The Letter

http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml

Ryan said...

Our dear kind President,

Thank you so much for you inspired counsel! You truly are the President of Presidents.

Do not listen to the detractors, you are preaching plain and precious truths that because of the cunning plan of the adversary have been neglected and distorted. We need and appreciate your diligence in restoring these lost truths because "A man cannot be saved in ignorance."

P.S. I enjoy your wife's blog, but I feel that you should exercise righteous dominion over her and her blog, that it may be done under direction of the priesthood.

She has already undermined your authority by claiming that you take of the holy temple garments, to model underwear in a target catalog. Please tell me that this isn't true!

J. Orson Kimball said...

Daryl Young,
My heart aches for you as I read your post. The anger with which you strike out at one of the Lord's chosen leaders speaks to the hidden wickedness within you. President Paternoster gives council on this blog on his own time - which we know as an active patriarch of his family and his stake is precious and limited - to share the gospel and offer messages of hope and comfort to all the world.

Your anger and sarcasm come at a cost, because each time we speak ill of our leaders we are allowing the adversary to slowly poison our minds and our hearts, and you are risking the shaky faith of investigators and members alike who may read your post and think that all Latter-Day Saints partake of bitter fruit as you do. Speak kindly of them and hold fast to the stiff iron rod of faith as Lehi did in his dream.

Did you not stop to think that Pres. Paternoster might have used pseudonyms regarding his stake members? Did you not take the time to read, with a contrite heart and spirit, that nearly all of his council were direct quotes from Prophets of the Lord? I fear you are treading dangerously close to apostasy when you speak with such hostility of someone appointed to such a leadership position. Do you think he was randomly chosen to this post? No, dear brother, he has surely had several opportunities before this as Bishop and as Ward Clerk to be trained in the ecclesiastical methods appropriate to lead one of Heavenly Father's large flocks.

I pray for you, Brother Young, that you may soften your heart and receive the blessings that the rest of us have felt by Pres. Paternoster's words, even those words which he quotes from the humble Apostles, Prophets and Servants of the Lord.

President Paternoster, thank you for your wise council. We are all better off being reminded that our sexual appetites are meant for procreation and procreation only, to bring forth the spirit children waiting in the heavens for bodies and the chance to be sealed to their families for eternity, provided they follow the righteous commandments to enter the holy temple, including respecting our procreative powers and of course paying our tithing on any and all worldly items we receive.

I say these things humbly in the name of Jesus, even the Christ, amen.

Word Verification phrase: mormatc

Anonymous said...

President may I give you a suggestion for a 5th Sunday activity in your stake? About 6 months ago our bishop here in Bountiful had us keep track of our sexual activity for a month. He asked us to detail all aspects of our sexual life including; frequency, duration, positions, pre sexual stimulation (often times referred to as foreplay) and the use of any outside or foreign material or devices. He even encouraged us to draw pictures where words did not suffice.

Our bishop is truly and inspired man and a spiritual giant. He has informed us on many occasions that he has received personal revelation that he is to be an apostle and, God willing, the president of our church. His council truly does come straight from God.

Our Bishop gathered all of our submissions and went over them at his leisure at home. He then listed them in a power point presentation during our 5th Sunday combined activity and instructed us on which practices were acceptable to our Heavenly Father and which were not.
At the end of his presentation he informed us that he was greatly disturbed by some of the sexual practices we had listed. He commanded us to repent and to refrain from removing the garment of the holy priesthood which we were commanded to wear both day and night. He commanded us that our garments should be a part of our sexual relationship.
President I can tell you that these words are truly inspired. It was difficult at first, but we found that if my wife would wear the mens garment with the slot in the front we could still have a beautiful spiritual and sexual experience.
I would recommend all of your readers to listen to the council of your future prophet, my Bishop, and keep the covenants you have made to wear your garments both day and night.

Catherine Pillinger said...

*like*

Anonymous said...

This blog is awesome. It is, literally, the highlight of my day.

Daryl Young - not afraid to use my real name said...

Chris S and other "anonymous" individuals too afraid to use their own names.

Since you dont really read the whole statements I wrote I did in fact provide direct church authoritive text with supporting links to the statements I made, however since you seem inept to be able to copy and paste these links to see for yourself I will copy the exact quotes here and you can scroll up yourself to see the URL to verify for yourself.

to begin with... there is actually NO statement that Pres P can actually provide to support his opinions, just because he wrote it, does not make it doctrine, just because he's a stake Pres, he does not speak for the church, he has stewardship of his stake only - however that stewardship is only within the bounds of inspired church policy, not an interpretation which he finds to be true for himself. Prove me wrong

Actually I challenge Pres P and anyone here to prove me wrong with anything I write.

at LDS.org and since LDS.org an official church document and Pres P's blog is not - so it over-rides anything Pres P says.
"Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage.

The statement goes on to list sexual sins: (summarizing)
Sexual relations outside of Marriage
Homosexuality

NOTE: nothing at all about personal intimacy - if personal practices were a "sin" then it would have been written

Then talks about "Keeping the law of Chastity" (summarizing)
Be chaste - use sexual practices within marriage
Never Flirt outside of marriage
Control your thoughts
Be faithful to your spouse

Still no statements of personal intimacy practices - any thoughts that these are "impure practices" are merely personal opinion, and there is nothing wrong with that if within the marriage you both agree, but to tell the saints that its impure and with-hold Temple recommends on this opinion is unrighteous dominion and not founded on truth.

Continued below…

Daryl Young - not afraid to use my real name said...

Further in the LDS handbook instructions it states under the heading of
Chastity and Fidelity -21.4.5
The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

The paragraph immediately above this written policy it states: 21.4.5 - Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

Further more Pres P violates 3 official church councils.

1. Names the very sister mentioned in her confidential Temple Recommend interview - Church leaders have a sacred responsibility to keep all content confidential.

2. Pres P by naming his blog “LDS (Mormon) Stake Presidents Blog” makes it appear that what he says id official LDS practices, policy & doctrine. Non LDS who seek the truth are being lead astray by "opinions" here is the church Policy about blogs such as this as found in LDS handbook of instructions: "Stake and ward Web sites may be created only by using the official Church Internet resources. Stakes and wards are not authorized to create other Web sites or blogs or otherwise have a Church-sponsored presence on the Internet."

3. Pres P and any other bishop who follows this practice of give personal council of what happens intimately goes directly against the church direction In 1978, the First Presidency added a statement to the Temple recommend questions that indicated that those who had not repented of “impure, unholy, or unnatural sex acts” could not receive a recommend. It is also true that the First presidency made a statement in Jan 1982 quoting "Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices.”

This does not in anyway give license to Stake Presidents or Bishops to personal interpretations what is unnatural, impure or unholy. There is no doubt that President Kimball had certain behaviors in mind when considering these “unnatural” acts. A letter that was briefly circulated by the first presidency in 1982 included oral sex to be considered among these acts. This counsel, while not officially rescinded, has not been reiterated since and is generally unknown. Starting in 1985, the Temple recommend question was simplified to, “Do you live the law of Chastity?”

Continued below….

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work Prez, you made my day as well.

Daryl, not all can use their real names, like this gentleman, be glad you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68wnWPu120k

Daryl Young - not afraid to use my real name said...

President Hinckley categorized as spousal abuse the “demand [of] offensive intimate relations” in the priesthood session of 1990 April conference. Further, he stated that “You must judge within your heart whether you are guilty of any practice that is unholy, impure, or in any way evil before the Lord.” The current General Handbook (1998) states that “sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.”

This, effectually, leaves the considerations of intimacy to couples and God.

The First Presidency released another letter in 1982 that stated that bishops “should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between man and his wife.”

The statement by “anonymous” above this comment about his Bishops 5th Sunday lesson is directly against church leadership policy

Since I have quoted from the LDS handbook of instructions and official church documents from the First Presidency any argument against what I have written is actually against the First Presidency and thus is regarded as:

1. Personal opinion only
2. Unwittingly against church official council

It is also true that the First presidency made a statement in Jan 1982 quoting "Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices.”

This does not in anyway give license to Stake Presidents or Bishops to personal interpretations what is unnatural, impure or unholy

Note: the wearing of garments during intimacy is also not church policy, nor is having intimacy is to be only for the use of procreation. There is no such policy and any Stake Pres or Bishop that says and enforces otherwise is not acting by inspiration on behalf of the Church.

Prove me wrong

Stake Pres. said...

I would just like to personally thank one and all for contributing to the success of this blog through your comments.

Just to be clear if you go to my very first post I stated that as a stake president I do not speak for the church as a whole.

And to be more clear on the interpretation of what constitutes an impure or unholy practice I have now posted the letter of which I spoke to the end of this blog post.

Keep the faith Brothers and Sisters, keep the faith.

The President

Daryl Young said...

sorry I accidently quoted a paragraph twice in the last post which may make the content less fluid

Chris S a.k.a. Christopher Allen Smith said...

Daryl Young,

Those who cannot live a celestial law cannot dwell in the presence of God. Sadly, many so-called Latter-day Saints lack the faith to live the Celestial law. It is precisely this lack of faith that has forced us to temporarily abandon the celestial laws of Plural Marriage, consecration, etc. The Lord adapts his message based on the weaknesses of his followers, just as he did when he gave the Aaronic Priesthood to the Jews after they rejected the higher law.

Anyone who is comfortable living a telestial law is free to practice oral sex; those of us who strive for a more excellent way will continue to eschew this wicked practice. The Celestial Law prepares us to return to God's presence. I apologize if this sounds crass, but would you be comfortable participating in oral sex in God's presence? If your answer to this question is 'no,' then I wonder why you feel that it would be appropriate to do here on Earth during the days of your probation.

Anonymous said...

Prez,
Keep the faith indeed, my FB friend. My prayers are with you. You are truly an inspiration, just like John Dehlin, in helping us lost souls at RfM find Christ again. Hugs my friend.

Sister Jensen Christiansen said...

I have been a faithful temple recommend holder for decades and I want to speak in defense of oral sex. My husband was born with a birth defect known as micropenis. You can guess how it is manifested. We remained chaste before marriage so I never knew my husband had this condition until our wedding night. I just want to say that if it weren't for oral sex, I would not know the sacred pleasure that the Lord has ordained for married couples. Without oral copulation, I would experience nothing but frustration and would perhaps even be tempted to stray from our marital bed. Some may question the propriety of our engaging in oral copulation, but would you really rather we bring the world into our bedroom by using sex toys and such? And in case you're all still judging me, I only have just one final thing to say: why don't YOU try being married to a husband without a dick!

Anonymous said...

Sister Christiansen,
I think your husband in my Bishop! He's surely overcompensating for something.

Brother Heber said...

Sister Christiansen, I, like your husband, suffer from this most dreadful of defects. I have received the laying on of hands, placed my name in the temple prayer roll and have prayed constantly for our Heavenly Father to reverse my affliction.
Unfortunately my wife does not believe in the partaking of oral pleasures. I am afraid after 13 years of marriage Sister Heber has never experienced the pleasures of her sisterhood. Is there no relief for us afflicted?

Anonymous said...

Everyone should lookup the name paternoster and you will see that the author is just creating pointless, cyclical and inaccurate conversation as denoted by the name. We should all be sure of the context and source of all we read and not use tangential or incomplete information to guide out minds.

Anonymous said...

From one Anon to another--whether he is real or not does not matter to me. Finally someone is talking and providing a forum for people to talk about real issues and concerns with the LDS church. Prez, will always be my hero whether he is found out or not.

Daryl Young said...

Chris..

I addressed you as you requested with statements from the First Presidency. You responded to me with nothing more than personal opinion without anything to back up your claims. Increasing love within marriage bounds IS the celestial law as directed by the First Presidency, Take some time to actually read the quotes.

One question for you.

Would you feel comfortable making love in any manner in front of Heavenly Father? what? you wouldnt? you'd maybe be a bit embaressed? wow so making love might be actually a Telestial law by your arguement

You can not provide anything but personal opinion that sexual practises out side your "normal" relms are "wicked

Show some education and back up your statement. Pres P and all others I challenge you to do the same

Pres P provided one image of a document signed by the First Presidency but didnt provide the later statements also written by the First Presidency that same year - in 1982 that stated that bishops “should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between man and his wife.”

Then 16 years later....

and again the current General Handbook (1998) states that “sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.”

read that last part again.."...but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.”

further more Pres P under my last statement confirms that he does not speak for the church therefore this opinions are meant to be taken as personal thought, not instruction for the general populous of the LDS members and is not LDS policy.

If how you conduct your personal matters in the bedroom works for you and your wife, thats great, but is not within your stewardship to call one method either "Celestial" or "Telestial" with the bounds of husband & wife, I confidently claim that this is Celestial and no man would be able to claim the right to withhold a temple recommend from keeping this law. The Temple recommend question is "Do you keep the Law of Chastity" the Law of Chastity is clearly defined in the LDS handbook of instructions, as shown in previous statement - please read.

Brother Heber said...

Daryl,
My wife and I always open with a word of prayer before we share our most sacred of gifts. I do, at times, imagine that Heavenly Father himself is watching us from the corner of the room. I think this provides healthy boundaries and keeps us focused on the spiritual aspects of the gift of procreation.
We also like to close with a word of prayer.

Chris S said...

Daryl,

I would not be ashamed to procreate in front of Heavenly Father, because I know that he, too, procreates. I highly doubt that he takes part in any base pleasures, though. In a sense, I do 'make love' in front of Heavenly Father every time my wife and I embrace in Holy Consumation, because I know that someday, all of our secret actions will be revealed before the judgment seat. No works of darkness can be hidden for ever. Imagine our shame when our deviant sexual practices are broadcast before the world on that great and terrible day of the Lord.

As for my authority, if the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is not enough authority for you, then I fear that your heart is already hardened and my earnest supplications to you will be to no avail. The Spirit ceases to contend with those who will not hearken unto its manifestations.

And if that's not enough, isn't Smith > Young? (Joking)

Perhaps we will simply have to agree to disagree on this matter. For me, when I consider that my eternal salvation could eventually turn on this issue, it is simply not worth the risk.

I hope, for your sake, and for the sake of your family members who are sealed to you, that you are not mistaken. Follow the Spirit, brother, and your garments will be found spotless at the last day, for they will be washed clean in the blood of the Lamb.

Stake Pres. said...

Brother Young, as a stake president I am well aware of the instruction in our manuals. When I said "I have never even approached Sister Paternoster with regards to intimacy unless invited and in the spirit of producing offspring unto the Lord" I was talking about mine and Sister Paternoster's relationship, which I admit is a little old fashioned.

The focus though on this blog post is with regards to oral sex being an impure and unholy practice. I have a letter signed from the First Presidency stating that it is. If anyone can show me a later letter where the First Presidency stated that they had made an error in judgement in this case then I will be happy to add such a letter to this blog post.

Brigham Taft Pratt said...

Is this Daryl guy from some break off sect of Mormonism? I have heard of New Order Mormons that kind of put their own spin on things. Maybe he is one of them. Regardless, I feel like he is really undermining the brethren with his words on this blog.

Daryl Young said...

Would a break off Sect or Mormonism quote from the current LDS handbook of instructions?

and again the current General Handbook (1998) states that “sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.”

After the first Presdency sent that letter to Stake Presidents & Bishops they issued this statement
in 1982 that stated that bishops “should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between man and his wife.”
This is using the spirit - all other coments are using the spirit of opinion based principles, not First Presidency lead principles.

I do request that before posting such blogs that you seek current council and promote current issued statements.

I do sustain Pres P as a Stake Pres..not mine but has been given authority...however that authority is the Preisthood authority to perform such duties as a Stake Pres. This authority makes it in now way official church policy as he himself says in this discussion, it is only his opinion, that is all. The danger I see in promoting it here is that people who dont know the truth and are les informed think that the title of this blog "LDS(Mormon) Stake presidents Blog" people will believe that Pres P's comments are official church policy - which they are not -ask Pres P yourself

I have said nothing of myself except quote from LDS handbook of instructions so to argue with me is to argue the handbook

Anonymous said...

another note, the letter says

"Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices"

this does not mention oral sex or anyhing specific. oral sex is your own personal interpretation. There are many impure, unnatural acts that I refrain from mentioning here (as I have the discernment that other younger innocent people may be reading)

Bishops are instructed not to engage in such inquirey of married couples and to do so are in violation of the First Presidencies request - seek the truth and you shall find.

and what of the code of confidentiality mentioning the Sisters name? If it was a pseudo name Pres P would have said so.

Daryl Young said...

Brigham.

maybe since I actually quote from the LDS handbook on instructions as found on LDS.org. and the authors of LDS.org and the LDS handbook of instructions are the "First Presidency" maybe the First Presidency are a breakaway group.

Yes that was sarcastic.

Nobody not even Pres P has been able to show official church doctrine on the matter. The scanned letter is not officail church doctrine. I can show you many many incidences of letters signed by first presidency that are not considered church doctrine by the church today.

only myself and one other Anonymous contributor has quoted official church doctrine and instructions.

Legal Eagle said...

The only doctrine is that there is no doctrine.

Personally, I apply a five year statute of limitations on all of the teachings of the Brethren. Since this letter is more than five years old, it is no longer valid (until the Brethren repeat themselves on this issue). Also, it has been more than five years since I heard a General Authority say that we cannot watch R-rated movies; therefore, we may watch them freely until we hear otherwise in 1) General Conference, or 2) a signed letter.

Problematic doctrines like Adam-God, Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Polygamy, etc. cease to be problematic when the statute of limitations is invoked. Pres. Hinckley set the precedent for this when he claimed during a 60 Minutes interview that he didn't know if our church taught that human beings can attain Godhood.

This statute of limitations allows only the purest and most frequently taught doctrines--like tithing, obedience, the restoration, and priesthood authority--to rise to the top, while the lesser doctrines fade away. In this way we can focus on the meat of the gospel without getting distracted by the milk.

Legal Eagle said...

In fairness, I forgot to mention the atonement, repentance, baptism, temple worship, and getting married at a young age, which are also important 'meat-doctrines'.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Stake President,
I will basicly sum up my thoughts simply instead of ranting on.

YOU ARE FULL OF $h*!

Thank You for listening
Power to the pussy lickit suck it fuck itall night long.

Suck that dick ride it hard the stake pres is a retard.
Grab her tits rub her clit and scream all night long.

Stake Pres. said...

I would agree that there is a difference between a doctrine and a teaching. Oral sex is not doctrinally wrong BUT when 4 members of the First Presidency (yes there were 4 back then) sign a letter of instruction to church leaders and take the opportunity within that letter to state that oral sex is considered by them to be an impure and unholy practice then I as a stake president take that instruction very seriously, especially when sacred temple covenants are made to NOT engage in impure and unholy acts.

When counselling with a couple and they ask and sincerely want to know I will share with them what little information I have on the topic. If that makes me a poor stake president in your eyes then so be it. Personally I don't think the Lord will fault me for using a letter signed by 4 prophets, seers and revelators including the church president at the time.

Catherine Pillinger said...

@Daryl Young: But, and I could be wrong, aren't there TWO Handbook of Instructions now? One that is available for public view and one that is only for the "higher ups"? Back in the day when I was a Bishop's wife I had the opportunity to read through the previous Handbook of Instruction many times (it has to be FedEx'd directly to the Bishop's home so as to avoid it landing in improper hands... I read it from cover to cover a couple times) even thought the rest of our ward wasn't allowed.

I was under the impression that there is now a Handbook II that is not for the general membership to read. Surely it must be VERY secret ...I mean sacred. Who knows WHAT is covered in Volume II? Maybe some pretty cool shiznit! Too bad we're not worthy to read it. I'm sure oral sex is covered, or UNcovered there.

Anonymous said...

Not only are you full of Shit Mr President but the church is a cult and full of shit. For a temple ceremony that includes naked touching under the guise of "annointing" and promises of throat slitting. Oral sex is the least thing thecult I mean church should be worred about. The church glosses over its history and flatout tells lies.

Fact did you know that good Ole Joe Smith practiced Polygamy in secret? Including taking women as wives that were already married to other men and women he was taking care very very young women. Its all in Emma Hale Smiths Biography Mormon Enigma. Now thats sexual perversion.

Stake Pres. said...

That was not sexual perversion anonymous. Joseph Smith was a pure vessel unto the Lord and only did that which he was commanded to do.
Please refrain from speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.

Sister Pillinger I have the new book for stake presidents and Bishops and there is no mention of oral sex therein. The only quote that is this specific that I can find is the one in the letter. Personally I am happy to have more of the word of the Lord from our leaders, but some on this site seem to want less and would rather discount an official letter from our highest leaders.

Anonymous said...

Its not evil its a FACT!
And screwing other mens wives and screwing under age women is perversion in my book.

Thou shalt not commit adultry one of the ten commandments comes to mind.

Brigham Taft Pratt said...

Daryl,
New Order Mormons are notorious for quoting "current" church publications and websites. They pick and choose those parts that suit them and ignore other teachings. You certainly fit the criteria. New Order Mormons still attend the regular church, they just have their own belief system. I hope and pray that you can humble yourself and come back into the fulness of the gospel. I KNOW that President Paternoster's words are inspired. The same spirit that told me the Book of Mormon was true has confirmed the truthfulness of the message that the President shared today. Perhaps you need to go back to the basics and just start to read and pray again. Regardless, I will pray for you and put your name on the temple roll. The Lord loves you brother, but we can safely assume he is disappointed.

Stake Pres. said...

I think you have been reading too much anti-Mormon material anonymous. I haven't heard any of this in the church approved materials that I have read.

Daryl Young said...

the Letter diectly sent to Bishops from The First Presidency released in 1982 AFTER the initial letter that Pres P uses for evidence that stated that bishops ...“should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between man and his wife.”

The Lord does not engage is secret rules that you cannot understand until you get to the Temple recommend interview If oral sex was specifically mentioned it would say in the first handbook. The church does write one set of rules for the public to see and provide contrary rules for the Bishops and Stake Presidents to use like an ambush

Pres P.. oral sex is still your interpretation of impure acts - it doesnt say anywhere not even in the letter you provide as your standard - There are many other sexual practises that could be considered impure and unnatural shall we go into it? (S&M bestiality - things that would harm the body or spirit) The word "oral" has never been mentioned in the history of any official handbook or letter.

Please provide evidence to the contrary.

again repeating official church statements
The current General Handbook (1998) states that “sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.”

This, effectually, leaves the considerations of intimacy to couples and God...."Couples & God"

And there you have it Bros & Sisters - Pres P says himself, that oral sex is NOT doctrinally wrong -Therefore thehis opinions in this blog is his own personal opinion and should not be used as church policy.

Catherine Pillinger said...

@Pres. Taternostril... thank you SO much for clearing that part up. (Not that it matters to me anymore as I no longer have a temple marriage so anything goes -- yee HAW!)

Stake Pres. said...

No problem Sister Pillinger.

Brother Young I should add though that just because oral sex is not 'doctrinally' wrong it doesn't mean it is right. The letter clearly states that "The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice"

One might argue that smoking pot is not doctrinally wrong, but that it's just a teaching or counsel from the brethren. I would deny a temple recommend though to someone who admitted to partaking. And I believe I am justified in that, though I can't find anywhere near as good a statement on pot as the one in the letter on oral sex.

Catherine Pillinger said...

@Brother Young:

>>>The church does write one set of rules for the public to see and provide contrary rules for the Bishops and Stake Presidents to use like an ambush<<<

Oh I am SO RELIEVED TO HEAR THIS! So this must mean that you have personally READ the second Handbook that the general membership is not allowed to read?

Because as recently as 10 years ago THEY MOST CERTAINLY DID.

Spencer said...

If a letter signed by the prophet to be read over the pulpit isn't official, then what is?

The policy of enforcement may have been modified in order to not overly trouble those weak in the faith, bit the doctrine has never been rescinded.

Trust me, I have been over this a thousand times with my wife, exploring it from every angle. But there's just no wiggle room.

Fact: Oral sex is an "unholy and impure practice," which directly violates the charge given during the second covenant, sign, and token (and former death oath) in the temple.

You can't keep one foot in the temple and one foot in the world, Daryl. If you cannot hearken unto the Lord's counsel, this is a cut and dry case of the
wicked taking the truth to be hard.

Catherine Pillinger said...

Me again... I just REread the original quote from Brother Young >>>The church does write one set of rules for the public to see and provide contrary rules for the Bishops and Stake Presidents to use like an ambush<<< [emphasis mine, and way too funny to resist]

Anonymous said...

Prez, why do you have to live in the UK? We need someone as amazing as you in the U.S., right in the heart of Utah! I hope you get promoted soon, I'd love to meet you in person.

Stake Pres. said...

Anonymous I am but a plane ride from Utah.

Anonymous said...

:) One day we will meet. You have helped me immensely. That one sheep Jesus went back for, well you can tell him you found her.

Stake Pres. said...

I will mention that next time He stops by anonymous :) Now, it is well past my bed time and I have not kept the instruction to go to bed early; but I shan't let that stop me from arising early all the same-that I may feast upon the scriptures. Goodnight all.

Daryl Young said...

You must judge within your heart whether you are guilty of any practice that is unholy, impure, or in any way evil before the Lord

sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife

[Bishops] should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between man and his wife

Do you live the law of Chastity?

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

Carolyn said...

@Daryl Young - you are so intent on arguing against the prohibition of oral sex. It really leaves no doubt as to your stance on the issue. The statement was made clearly in 1982 and has not been rescinded. The church has stated before that once it has spoken on a subject, there is no need to say more. So there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this has been rescinded, and every reason to believe that the church still stands behind its original stance. With the issues such as sex being only for procreation, the church has definitely changed tack on that.
You really only have two choices: To admit that the church gets it wrong and changes tack continually, and therefore continue to practise oral sex knowing that at some point they will issue a statement saying its now OK, or you need to stop doing it and just hope that one day the policy changes.
But I will say, ALL of your posts smack of the "my lady doth protest too loudly" syndrome.

daryl Young said...

I quote the LDS handbook - official policy of the church - you quote opinions

in fact the coments above your comment are 100% from LDS handbook of instruction, not one of my own words - are you disregarding the First Presidencies words to suit your own interpretations? The letter in 1982 did not even mention oral sex.

My arguement is this:

1. Stake Presidents and Bishops have been counselled not to engage in persoan bedroom activities between husband and wife.

2. Oral sex has not been specifically address by the first presidency - no body not even Pres P can provide evidence of it - it is assumed only
therefore if it isnt specifically addressed then it cant be repented on as it is not officail policy, doctrine or church teaching. We dont need to repent on "opinions" expressed as the Lord has not given it direction. If the Lord does, then well thats a different story and sure there is grounds for repentance -

I have only been attacked by opinions and no one can verify anything they say - not even that letter is evidence as it says nothing about Oral - for people to say it is unnnatural and impure - that is personal opinion only not LDS policy

Carolyn said...

Read the 1982 letter. In case you don't have access to it, here is the quote: "The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice."
End of argument. They have come out numerous times since then on practises that are "unnatural, impure or unholy". They have already defined at least one area that this constitutes. They should not need to go over this ground continually. It has been stated clearly. In fact, they could not have been more clear.
Daryl, you are not going to get rid of your guilty conscience by trying to claim that well-intentioned members on this site are stating their own opinions. The Lord has spoken clearly on this through his annointed. That has not been changed. Stop trying to fight against it, and do what you NEED to do to bring your sexual practises into alignment with what has been clearly stated as being correct.

Sweetie said...

I thought this post was about the past counsel of the prophets and that new enlightenment came out, along the lines of what Daryl Young said (btw Daryl, where is that sex therapist link?). But I stand corrected after researching the following current statements of the leaders:

"For us, to 'believe all things' means to believe the doctrine of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the words of the Latterday prophets. It means to successfully erase our doubts and reservations.

"Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction — whether it be recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets — to be worthy of obedience."

"Let us believe all things. Let us have unquestioning faith in all of the doctrines and truths of the restored gospel."- Elder Robert Oaks, "Believe All Things" Church Ensign, July 2005, page 30

"The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982

You want to REALLY know what the leaders (prophets with keys and authority!) think? This summarizes it well and gives references. Daryl, please honor us!
http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/mormon_oral_sex.htm

Daryl Young said...

Yes I see, I stand corrected on the fact of it being written...however that letter was only briefly circulated not published in any church materials or handbooks...and is not doctrine.. until it enters into one of the four standards works - which I'll talk about later

This counsel, while not officially rescinded, has not been reiterated since and is generally unknown. Starting in 1985, the Temple recommend question was simplified to, “Do you live the law of Chastity?”

in the priesthood session of 1990 April conference. Pres Hinkley stated that “You must judge within your heart whether you are guilty of any practice that is unholy, impure, or in any way evil before the Lord.” (5) The current General Handbook (1998) states that “sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.” This, effectually, leaves the considerations of intimacy to couples and God.

about doctrine... Only written in the standard church are considered doctrine.

Whenever new doctrines are to be introduced, they are first presented by the President to his counselors and then to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a meeting of the council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. If unanimously approved, they are then presented to the membership of the Church at a general conference for a sustaining vote.

Pres Harold B Lee stated in a conference “If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl Of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by the same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.”

So since it is not therefore doctrine, not you nor Pres or anyone on this blog commentary can call me to repentance as no repentance is required as no sin has been committed

Sweetie said...

So thus we see... the prophets have spoken long ago about the same subject matter and have not changed (sorry Daryl!). I agree with Carolyn, you get to choose which way you will serve.... keep up the wonderful oral sex that it is, or follow the prophet. If there's a confict, which surely there appears to be, you get to choose your next move.

Here's the kicker... IF the prophets are truly inspired by God... what's the hesitation??????

BUT....

If they are not, hmmmmm... now what?

Follow the prophet, stop thinking and feeling for yourself! Don't you also remember the talk: Improvement Era in 1945 (June issue, p.354): "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done." (!!! I might add)

Sweetie said...

Another thing..........

Daryl, you debate over doctrine or counsel.... but what about this the following? Look, if we can't trust our prophetic leaders who speak with authority of God, then who can we trust? Come on.... how can you just throw out what they say? Either they are prophets of God or what???

"We cannot lead you astray." Elder Ballard stated: "...there is one clear, unpolluted, unbiased voice that you can always count on. And that is the voice of the living prophet and the apostles" (Ensign, April 2002, p. 70).

President Joseph Fielding Smith stated the following: "Now, Brethren, I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord" (Ensign, July 1972, p. 88).

President Tanner, in a First Presidency message said: "When the prophet speaks the debate is over" (Ensign, Aug. 1979).

Harold B. Lee said at one conference: "You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life.... Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow.... Let's keep our eye on the President of the Church" (Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152-153).

Daryl Young said...

Mormons commonly assume official publications, policies, procedures, pronouncements, and pontifications are Official Doctrine. While they are necessary and important for the running of the Church, they don’t meet the standard Elder Roberts described above as something “…the Church is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted.”

More recently (2007) the Church issued a press release defining Official Doctrine as established by

“The First Presidency … and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price).”

This is a singular standard that the Church has held since its founding for officially binding doctrine. Everything else is, by definition, less official, less authoritative. President Harold B. Lee explains,

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”

There are five items often "assumed" to be Official Doctrine, but "fail the above standard". They are
Official talks and statements
Official publications
Official policy and procedure
Books by General Authorities
Conventional wisdom

Im going to explain something that you are probably not ready for, but before I do I want to tell you that I sustain my leaders as long as they are directed by the spirit. I know the Book of Mormon to be true, I know the Church is true. However not everything every leader says is true, not every word is directed by the spirit and some statements need to be questioned, researched and prayed upon

here is something that you are probably not ready for, but you issued the challenge and here it is.

Official Talks and Statements by General Authorities
Are Not Official Doctrine

While many members say statements by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are Official Doctrine, history shows GA’s statements occasionally are not reliable.

*Several GA’s taught that polygamy is essential for salvation and would never be removed from the Church.

*Brigham Young vigorously taught the Adam-God theory, though Church leaders since have repeatedly disavowed it.

*Several GA’s from Brigham Young to Bruce R McConkie taught the Blacks would never get the Priesthood.

*Joseph Fielding Smith said man would never set foot on the moon.

*Apostle Franklin D. Richards promised the Martin and Wiley handcart companies the Lord would protect them on their journey so they would arrive unscathed. Nevertheless, 200+ died in route.

Infallibility of prophets and apostles is not, nor has it ever been, a doctrine of the Church. They are wise men, with many decades of life experience, and enjoy a special relationship with God because of their callings. While their guidance is quite valuable, God has not absolved them from the weaknesses of mortality, nor does He eliminate all errors in their understanding and judgment. They must be tried and tested like everyone else, and they make mistakes both trivial and sometimes tragic like everyone else.

Legal Eagle said...

Daryl,

If your criteria for doctrinality is 1) unanimous approval of the Brethren, and 2) presented to the membership for a general vote, then you are left with only a handful of doctrines. I have taken the liberty of looking them up, and these are the only 'doctrines' that fit the criteria:

1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church

1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted

1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price

1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)

1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted

1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

Everything else (including all temple ordinances) are merely fashionable teachings without doctrinal authority. Furthermore, I fail to understand why a revealed Truth from God must be subjected to a ratifying vote by the membership.

You are clearly an apostate, a wolf in sheep's clothing, here to lead away the very elect with your doublespeak and flattering words.

Daryl Young said...

Books Written by General Authorities
Are Not Official Doctrine

Many books are written by the general authorities to help us understand gospel principles and practices. They can be very helpful, but care should be used with the usual caveat to distinguish between their private opinions and teachings of the canonized scriptures. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

“Though general authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church Procedures, or the receipt of the promptings of the Spirit. A call to an administrative position of itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual, although every person called to a position in the Church does grow in grace, knowledge, and power by magnifying the calling given him.”

Daryl Young said...

Conventional Wisdom
Is Not Official Doctrine

There are lots of things many people erroneously believe are Official Doctrine. Among them are:

*To be a good member, you must be a Republican.

*Caffeinenated soft drinks, chocolate bars, etc. are forbidden, along with coffee.

*GA’s will never lead you wrong. You will be perfectly safe if you follow what they say.

*Temple garments will protect you from physical harm. You will be safe from hazards like fire or chemical burns wherever and whenever you are covered.

*Always trust Church leaders advice over such “worldly types” like psychologists, social workers, philosophers, scientists of various disciplines, and other intellectuals.

*If you go to church, say your prayers, pay your tithing, accept church callings, the Lord will bless you so you will have no serious problems.

Like the Pharisees and Sadducees of the Bible, some people are so obsessive fulfilling the letter of the law that they forget the spirit of the law. They teach the lesson, but ignore the student. They are so busy with church work, that they have little time for their own children. They are so set on arguing their religion that they alienate people. In their zeal to be right, they fail to be good. We must not let them draw us away from that which is good, true and enduring in the gospel.

Daryl Young said...

ne question, I dont expect you to take everything here as gospel and you shouldnt as I am just a man with opinions like yourself.

So the question is

Is a prophet always talking as a Prophet or does he sometimes speak as a man?

Daryl Young said...

Sorry Legal eagle

This is not my criteria for Doctrine, it is the Churches criteria for Doctrine to be made doctrine, I didnt make it up. Its how the church standardized what is Doctrine and what is not

Its a pretty harsh thing to call me apostate when all I do is copy and paste the LDS handbook of instructions and other church publications - I have given several links to LDS handbook and others but I guess people wish to attack me personally other than seek out the text for themselves

Why are we encouraged to seek confirmation from the spirit when directions are given?

Anonymous said...

You know this must be irritating to you, Im not this clever though, I copy and paste what the bretheren have written, so to call me a wolf in sheeps clothing leading people away with flattering words is to infer that the Bretheren are infact doing this.

If you go about the gospel seeking personal revelation on these subjects you may find your soul enlarge with delightness as you understand the true purpose and nature of the Atonement and the plan of Salvation.

I am so happy with what I have learnt about the Saviour and his role for us, actually more than ever before. Salvation does not come to us by the nit picking of tiny suggestions here and there. And I have felt the spirit regularly and recently baptised my beautiful wife & her parents, not to go about boasting of self worthiness, but to share that we have felt the Spirit strong everyday as we study the Gospel, and the Spirit cannot dwell in an unclean vessel. When we feel the spirit and renew our covanants each Sunday we are sanctified as the day we were baptised.

If my practices with my wife were offensive and a sin to God, then I wouldnt be worthy to receive revelation or confirmation by the Spirit. It doesnt matter if you agree, it doesnt matter to me at all as it doesnt effect me or my salvation. Everything I have written I have written in the Spirit of truth. I know that Pres P wrote in the Spirit of truth as he knew it, this is not wrong and he can be commended however sometimes we need to be enlightened to show what is actually doctrine and what is actually of man.

There are many misnomers that LDS accept as doctrine but actually are mens ideas...which you may hear from me a bit later in a publication that Im working with scriptorial scholars at BYU. Some of these things may shock many LDS but also bring comfort especially to the non LDS community who believe amazing(weird) things about the church

Sorry if you guys felt the spirit of contention - it was not my intent which is why a mostly just copied and pasted statements from the LDS handbook of instructions

Adieu

Daryl Young said...

whoops the above statement was by Daryl Young not Anonymous

another anonymous said...

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet
by
Elder Ezra Taft Benson
February 26, 1980

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

http://lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

I think that about covers it.

Aurora said...

Wow this debate is getting tedious. Point...counterpoint. Theology. So much thinking my head hurts.

Luckily the prophets have already assured us that the prophets will never lead us astray. When the prophets speak, the debate is over. How do we know that's true? Because the prophets have said it, and prophets can never lead us astray.

All of this thinking for yourself and debating semantics can only lead you astray. If you got some sort of revelation saying oral sex is okay, and the prophets have said its an impure and unholy practice, then you shouldn't even have to think about it. Just stop doing it. If you're not having Church approved missionary style sex only on nights when your wife is ovulating, then that's between you, your wife, the Lord, and your broken covenants.

As for me, I'm going to just listen to the prophets. All this rationalizing and thinking and debating is exactly why Elder Boyd K. Packer named 'intellectuals' as one of the three greatest threats to the church (after homosexuals and feminists of course). You're going to lead innocent souls astray with all this 'looking beyond the mark'.

Prophets spoke on this issue before I was even born. Debate is over. If you want to have a theological debate, try something less perverted like whether or not we get to keep our pets in heaven.

Daryl Young said...

:) well you confirm everything I had stated as I have only quoted the Prophets from LDS hand book of instructions

-I have not quoted or rationalized anything but that which the prophets have written - go back and read the blog to establish this truth

Youre right and thankyou for confirming that I am right

Lisa said...

@Daryl - This has been a very interesting discussion. A lot of the things you raised, I had not been aware of. I was always raised that whatever the prophets said was true - basically the 14 points that are above. So I always believed in whatever I was taught. But you raise a lot of things I hadn't really known about before - teachings of previous prophets about blacks, polygamy, people setting foot on the moon. I have spent the last few hours researching the things that you wrote about. How did I not know about this before? I was taught that our religion didn't change because we had revelation. I've found a lot of changes. I'm going to research more, but with what I"ve already found out, I think I have to leave the church. Either the prophets are guided by God, or they are not. And I don't believe in a God who would allow this confusion.

Daryl Young said...

This is obviously a staged response. This is not the first one here on this blog. I have seen a few throughout it. The intent was to get me to retract my remarks and I stand by my remarks and my faith.

Brian said...

"Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works."

Hahahaha! Daryl just got owned. Hard. To believe an apologist I have to disbelieve actual church leaders.

Daryl - You first insisted that no such writing existed, and then the SP posted it. Then you insisted it wasn't "real" doctrine, and you were rebuked by the words of President Benson. The fact is that emotions are a crappy guide to truth, and the LDS have nothing else to go on, forcing you to jump through endless painful hoops in hopes of preserving belief at all costs.

Anonymous said...

I think I will stick to just reading the posts rather than the comments, I don't understand these cafeteria Mormons who pick and chose what to follow. The spirit has completely left this discussion, I pray that it comes back.

Ryan said...

Daryl,

You are truly a man of great wisdom. I wish I was as wise as you so that I could know that the First Presidency routinely sent out letters and made statements just to fool the general membership. I didn't know that all church leaders were such pranksters! I imagine it must be hard for you to be wiser and more in tune with the spirit than the First Presidency.


I feel like such a fool compared to your great wisdom. I have been taking Prophets counsel and letters as doctrine my whole life! I cannot believe that as you stated for something to be doctrine it must be in the standard works. (Is there a statement or letter from a prophet, seer and revelator that proves that is true?)

Oh what a fool I am...

I have been making and keeping temple covenants which are not found anywhere in the holy scriptures.

I have been answering temple recommend questions that aren't in the standard works anywhere!

I have completely avoided Masturbation, a topic that the holy scriptures are silent on.

I have avoided pornography like the plaque even though the scriptures say nothing about it.

I have at the request of church leaders, from the prophet to my bishop, voted against gay rights, something which the scriptures didn't tell me to.

Daryl, since there are people in the church as dumb as me you would be doing the general membership a great favor if after the first presidency sends out a letter for the church, you could send out your own letter too. Your letter could inform everyone that letters from the first presidency are not doctrine and you should consult the standard works if you have any doctrinal questions. I think this would clear up so much confusion.
Thanks in advance for all the hard work you will be doing to undo all the false doctrine contained in messages from the first presidency!

J. Orson Kimball said...

Brother Daryl,
I read your posts with a dark, sickening feeling. I can feel Satan's grip within you, and the hurt I feel in my chest is not just my high blood pressure - I know it's the Holy Ghost warning me that the great adversary is present in these comments.

I wish I could bring you aside and give you a loving, brotherly hug - the same as our brother Christ would do. I wish you would calm your mind and heart and truly meditate upon this subject - after all, meditation is really just prayer for those who haven't found the gospel - and listen for that still, small voice. If you can't calm these feelings of agitation, sarcasm, and anger that you feel enough to hear that soft, sweet voice of light and goodness, then you need to keep trying.

My mother, Eliza Regina Kimball, taught me that if a discussion made me feel dark, or angry, or upset inside, then I should change the topic immediately or leave the room altogether. I risk breaking the teachings of my mother by continuing to follow this "debate" you have with everyone else, but I feel so concerned as the Holy Ghost is sucked out of these comments like unto a Hoover that I simply can't turn away. You're breaking my heart and those of our Heavenly Father when you try so hard to put down your fellow members.

Daryl, everyone has their opinion. I think it's clearly obvious that you have your beliefs and the rest of us have ours. We can split hairs until the Quakers come down from the moon, but what good would that do? Would anger, sarcasm, and put-downs really help, or drive away the Spirit of the Lord? One can quote from the church's own website until we're blue in the face, but when it's done so with the spirit of contention then the words we quote are instantly meaningless. Besides, I don't need to see any of this because I know what President Paternoster says is true. I believe it on a spiritual level, the same level as my testimony, which was passed on to me from my father, H. Joseph Kimball, a great man with a kind, loving heart. I don't need proof when I know that it's true.

As our extremely lovely, if I may say so, Sister Aurora has pointed out - President Packer gave us three categories of enemy of the church. I truly fear you may fit at least two of those categories.

Brother Young, I testify to you of my belief of the restored Gospel. I know the teachings of the Prophets are true. I know that Spencer W. Kimball, Gordon B. Hinkley, and others wouldn't have signed their names to a letter without praying and meditating upon the scriptures for guidance from our Heavenly Father. I know that the church is the same yesterday, today, and forever, except when it's not. I testify to you that Jesus is the Christ, our Savior, and it is his spirit of love and kindness we should all strive to emulate. I testify that the words of our leaders, from the Prophets on down to our local bishops and of course stake presidents like Pres. Paternoster, are inspired by our Heavenly Father. I know in my heart that what they say is true. I say this in the name of our brother, our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus even the Christ. Amen.

Brother Young, I will pray for you tonight that Heavenly Father may soften your heart and calm your mind, and allow you to hear the soft, loving promptings of the Holy Ghost. I pray that you will watch some BYU-TV and feel your pulse slow from the racing beats your heart does now as you try to convince everyone of your beliefs, and feel that sickening feeling of darkness that must be shrouding you lift off and away from you. I pray that you will feel the true Spirit of the gospel. Amen.

Brigham Taft Pratt said...

Amen anonymous!
It has become very clear that the spirit and Daryl cannot occupy the same space. The President may have to rededicate this blog after the way it has been violated today.

Also, to all of the anonymous posters out there, please use a name. Even if you have to use a new name, so as to not identify yourselves, I strongly recommend it just for consistency.

Brother Heber said...

President, I understand that you believe in free agency and allowing all to come unto this board with their voice. I feel you may need to make an exception in this case. Brother Young is filled with the spirit of contention and I fear that he will lead some of our brothers and sisters astray, even unto darkness and eternal damnation.

President please ponder and pray on this subject and I will trust in your decision which is sealed by the holy spirit of promise.

Brother Young, I beg of you to heed to the wisdom and command of our leaders. They are among the world leaders in theological scholarship and they walk, talk and convene with our Lord and Savior on a daily basis. If you do not believe it remember the story of the Salt Lake temple janitor who heard President McKay laughing at a joke Jesus told him. These kind of stories prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that these are truly apostles and prophets of our Savior, even Jesus even Christ.

Anonymous said...

Daryl,

Don't dispair. I know what confusion is like. Just ignore the slams of these folks... But take the good counsel from what they say. Who knows maybe you are on to the real truth...

minimouth said...

Brother Young is not filled with the spirit of contention! He is looking for truth to live by.

Daryl, the spirit has manifested to me you are a good man and filled with willingness to choose the right. I am praying you will be able to find it through all the contradictions.

There are so many confusing aspects to all of this-that's why I find it much more simple to just ignore my brain, logic, reason, my own experience! and trust the brethern.
I think the post on the 14 points above is the real way when we want to clear up confusion about what to believe about prophets and leaders.

Sometimes I wonder what Jesus would do. And what he thinks about prophets? I wonder why he would tell them one thing with one set of prophets then another with the other set of prophets, especially when he says my word will never change and stuff like "never in this life", etc. But am I supposed to question? Doesn't that demonstrate I am coming from doubt? What about all the good feelings I keep having. Even if there's conflict, so what??

Well Daryl, I love you as a brother in the gospel and want you to not be offended because of others' self-righteousness in their vast knowledge of doctrinal discourse. What good is it to have all that information anyway, when the standing prophet is all that matters NOW? Right?

Ok, have a good day anyway.

I need to find a paying job that keeps my droning skills up. Does anybody know a decent minion conveyor belt job I can get?

Spencer said...

Aurora is right. What is the point of all this point/counterpoint/analysis shiz anyway? This is the very reason we have prophets and apostles to guide us. I for one feel it's better to err on the side of being safe and secure, and to avoid uneccessary contention.

Better to obey too much, for if it turns out we have misinterpreted the clear and simple language from a church president's official proclamation, it's better to go a lifetime without oral sex in exchange for the comforting assurance of an eternity of celestial BJ's during the initiatory rites of procreating spiritual progeny in the hereafter.

Daryl Young said...

Do you guys actually read? or assume whats written - be specific with me and read the following then argue each paragraph.

You must judge within your heart whether you are guilty of any practice that is unholy, impure, or in any way evil before the Lord

sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife

[Bishops] should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between man and his wife

Do you live the law of Chastity?

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

Amy Hammill said...

@ J. Orson Kimball, you said...

Brother Daryl,
I read your posts with a dark, sickening feeling. I can feel Satan's grip within you, and the hurt I feel in my chest is not just my high blood pressure - I know it's the Holy Ghost warning me that the great adversary is present in these comments.

So let me get this straight, basically you are saying...Daryl Young = satan...and Daryl Young HAS been copying and pasting direct information and quotes from LDS.org.....so LDS.org must be??????

Oh please people.

Mrs. Molly Smith said...

I have a question... since learning this I have tried to abstain from the oral pleasures of intimacy, but my husband insists on it. He has even read the letter and currently holds a temle recommend. I'm torn between obeying my husband or pleasing the prophet. What should I do? also, sometimes my husband tries to enter in the exit from the rear. Is that an acceptable alternative?

Brother Heber said...

Sister Molly Smith, that is a great question. Why have the brethren not addressed anal sex? How are we to know what to do in these circumstances without the Lord's guidance?
I think we need a letter from the 1st Presidency letting us know if we can engage in anal sex within the confines of a celestial marriage?
Until I receive such guidance I will trust the spirit of discernment within me which says the anus is a viable, sanctioned and sanctified orifice.

Erin said...

In the LDS handbook of instructions it says

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife

so the answer is, does it "strengthen" your emotional and spiritual bonds? if you feel uncomfortable then maybe it does not he he should be considerate of you. The Stake Pres or Bishop does not have the authority to direct how you behave in the bedroom, but you should communicate with you husband to find common ground for both to enjoy your closeness with out compromising your personal comfort.

There are LDS sex therapists that are trained to help couples. IF anything in the bedroom was forbidden besides missionary position then the position of LDS sex therapist would be shunned & anyone in that occupation would be disciplined by the church. But no the fact is, untrained Bishops have often referred couples with sexual issues to LDS sex therapists. Which is what I would personally recommend.

Nobody here has the right to say whether you and your husband should or shouldnt but as directed by the first presidency let me repeat the LDS handbook of instructions

sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife

if you can work it out in a satisfactory manner with your husband, seek professional assistance as the purpose of sexual relations is to have that closeness with your husband, and thats the real goal.

NOTE PEOPLE: I did not advocate the husbands activity and I quoted from handbook of instructions and encouraged her to sort it out properly with her husband as the instructions state. So if you call that counsel evil and of satan, you are saying LDS handbook is of satan

Anonymous said...

Brother Pratt,
A re-dedication is definitely in order!

I will work on my anonymous status, in the meantime, I am comments # 3, 7, 26, 27, 46, 51, 53, 56, 81, 83, & 106 (I think I lost count) and of course this one.

anonymous78 said...

Let's see if this works, I am the anonymous listed above.

Daryl Young said...

Seriously Anonymous above and Pratt
this is NOT an official LDS site
PRES P as his own admission says he does not repesent the church and expresses his own opinions

If you look at what I wrote - which obviously you didnt - I copied and pasted LDS handbook of intructions. I havnt said much of my own opinion

If you think that is of the devil...

better rededicate the whole LDS.org because that where I got it all from -you must think LDS.org is of the devil - you guys got stuff from one letter thats all

but heres a real Daryl opinion since you want one... your cant help but be idiots i guess

Amy said...

I have read this whole thing and you are all attacking Daryl Young for quoting directly from LDS’s official website. He has stated over and over he is copying and pasting and I looked it up and yes that is what he is doing. So if he is being evil are you not actually talking about the official LDS website as evil? Will someone answer me that question? You want to rededicate this web page, like its an official LDS web page for all of the evil that is being spread. The Stake Pres. Said himself this is not an official church page and these are merely his opinions. Go check for yourself on his very first blog page. The only thing I see written here that is maybe uncomfortable for some is the initial blog entry about oral sex written by the Stake president himself and then followed up by his followers who KEEP wanting to talk about oral and anal sex. Mr Young is only talking about written procedures given on the official website.

Stake Pres. said...

Well I would just like to make clear that I appreciate all comments and points of view expressed. One of the purposes of creating this blog was to promote discussion and this has been a rather interesting one, to say the least.

I have attempted to state my position that while I don't inquire into the bedroom practises of stake members if they specifically ask about oral sex and bring up the topic of their own free will (as was the case in this blog post) I will not shy away from showing them the letter I have in my possession. I have no other document to which I can turn that is as specific and clear on the matter. I will also refer to the handbook, but keep in mind the hanbook doesn't address the specific issue of oral sex.

I would like to further add that when a covenant is made (for example to abstain from impure and unholy practises) it becomes the responsibility of those who take upon themselves this covenant to understand the full meaning thereof.

Personally I appreciate the further light and knowledge given in the letter by those in charge of the church at the time. To be frank I find it hard to believe that a faithful member who has been through the temple would not welcome further light from no less than four prophets of God on the matter.

Whether you choose to accept or reject their interpretation is up to you but I am surprised at the anger some members are showing me for simply bringing up this subject. Shoot the messenger if you like, I don't mind, but keep one thing in mind - I didn't write the letter.

anonymous78 said...

Daryl,
I was not responding to your comments, and yes I did read them. I just think you have a very angry tone about this whole subject.

Here's my opinion for what it's worth though since we're sharing opinions:
I grew up TBM, I know full well what is and isn't true. I appreciate what Prez is saying here and I know full well it's a spoof site. Lighten up.

Daryl Young said...

Yes I agree you didnt write the letter, and I also didnt write the comments I wrote that I quoted from LDS handbook


Plus I also did not write the letter that instructs that bishops "should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between man and his wife"

I also did not write the quote from LDS handbook
"sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife"

the Temple recommend interview on asks
"Do you keep the Law of Chastity

The LDS handbook state exactly what that means -

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.


This is not an excerpt but the complete section which is LDS policy - (the letter you have is not written in any official church publication and has never been repeated)

Further more I have never had any feeling of anger - how could I when all I do is copy and paste LDS handbook of instructions - yes I have felt frustrated that people dont recognise it and think that these words are of the devil - they must be saying LDS handbook is of the devil as well.

Stake Pres. said...

Well I think you and I at least are in agreement Brother Young (though you would likely handle the question differently if you were in my shoes).

anonymous78 said...

Prez--do not be deterred from sharing the word of God; the way you are advising others is divinely appointed. I am impressed to tell you how much I have learned from your blog.

Anonymous said...

President P,

Why is it okay for bishops and stake presidents to probe intimate sexual details from those who humbly come to confess their sexual sins?

Church leaders don't probe for all these sexual details if married even when questions and discussions are brought forward. But when a person comes forward to repent ALL the details are discussed. Why? Is it just a form of shaming an already humbled and disgraced person?

Jesus never asked the details about the woman caught in the act od committing adultry.

Do you understand my confusion?

Stake Pres. said...

Thanks anonymous78 I am not in the slightest deterred from sharing the word of God. This has been a wonderful and uplifting discussion.

Anonymous - it is important for individuals to confess fully in order to be forgiven. Holding back is a form of pride and only prolongs the repentance process.

Amy said...

I too have thought this blog could be a spoof site but that’s not really the point is it? Whether its real or not the harm to the church is the same. It misleads LDS members and wrongly represents LDS to non-members. So the potential harm and effect is great and real even if it is a spoof site. The spread of misnomers is something that we all should stand up for. If we don’t are we not somewhat responsible for the backlash that is causes?
If it’s a spoof…he needs to be shut down.
If its real, just the mere fact that other LDS think and question it’s a spoof shows us that Stake President is not on track with what is taught.
Either way this blog is harmful.

Aurora said...

What is he teaching that is against the teachings of the Church? President Paternoster is careful to cite every source, be they general authorities or scriptures. How is that not on track with what is taught?

If it sounds weird or wrong to you, you're probably over-thinking it. Remember President Packer's warnings about intellectuals threatening the church.

Stake Pres. said...

Thank you Aurora. Thou art truly blessed amongst women and have wisdom well beyond your years.

Quoting general authorities should never be considered harmful to the church. Amy, be not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.

Anonymous said...

President P,

So you are saying it is necessary for full repentance to go into details about how many times a person had intercourse, how many times one gave AND received oral and which order it took place in, who went first and what came next, how long each thing lasted and so on and on. All of this is part of the repentance process? I wonder how that might affect all the men listening to the repenter and how it makes them feel.

Is it also normal for the repentent sinner to repeat the details over and over everytime they meet?

I just wonder if all that's the Lord's plan because my friend said that's how it went for her.

anonymous78 said...

Why should a spoof be shut down? He approaches issues such as this with tact, cites all his sources and encourages us to learn more. I grew up in the church in the Great Utah Valley and am a seminary graduate as well as a graduate of the Lord's own college; I thought I knew it all but Prez has me thinking about a lot of things. I've actually learned more about the church because of his blog. How is that harmful? Many of these things are taboo to discuss in Sunday school.

Anonymous said...

COULD be a spoof site? Sorry to be Captain Obvious, but this fellow isn't a stake president. The funniest part of this blog is seeing active members falling for the joke.

Save yourself the aggravation and stop taking the bait.

Ryan said...

Amy,

As a life long member of the only true and living church on earth, I am glad that we have a Stake President who will boldly speak the truth. As prophets always have. The truth is not a spoof!

I believe that Brother Daryl is the only one "spoofing" us. How can someone professing to be a member in good standing, so callously minimize the words of our beloved Prophets Seers and Revelators?

There is nothing that our most humble servant of the Lord, even President Paternoster has said that is out of line or false. He even provided documentation of his claim!

I get tired of members trying to hide past doctrines. let us proclaim the truth loudly as our brave President has done. Why should the church be embarrassed about our doctrines and try and pretend that they don't exist or never happened?

Until there is an official proclamation ending the ban on oral, like the ones that ended polygamy and the ban on blacks getting the priesthood the doctrine stands!

I believe that it is because of members like you and Brother Daryl who are so ashamed of the truth that we still don't have the sealed portion of the golden plates yet.

Let us be brave and rejoice in the truth Just as President Hinkley did when asked about the doctrine of Exaltation! Please stop attacking members brave enough to preach our doctrines

Anonymous said...

Ryan, you do not make any sense in your comment to Amy. Are any of you actually READING what has been said or the points that Daryl Young has made? He was talking about current doctrine and you are the ones talking about old past letters that are NOT doctrine but words of consideration.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous to ryan,

Define what doctrine is real and in the belief system and what doctrine is now false and to be discarded.

Is there some current publication that will show what is valid and what is not? I want to see it. I think if you could explain this or show some layout of what is the true church it will bring much clarity to all.

Molly M. said...

@President Paternoster,

When Polygamy is re-instituted during the millenium, can I be one of your plural wives? You are so righteous and I have been a very virtuous and chaste lady.

Sister Lewis said...

If we have questions about church doctrine we can go to our local leaders. They have been called to help us. President Paternoster is one of those leaders called of God and sustained and we should listen to their council. Ryan and Daryl while likely Priesthood holders with the authority of their priesthood can help their own families but the rest of us need to look to our priesthood leaders such as our bishops and stake presidents. I am thankful that Heavenly Father has given us local leaders to guide us when their is confusion. Thank you President.

Heather said...

Stake President, is it true that polygamy will be reinstated during the millennium?

anonymous78 said...

Molly,
I called first!

Stake Pres. said...

Bruce R. McConkie confirmed that polygamy would be reinstituted in the millennium here on earth. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578).

Sister Paternoster and I are willing to take additional wives if and as required of the Lord.

Heather said...

This could be considered false doctrine as mormon doctrine is NOT an approved LDS publication and is not considered doctrine. Do you have other official LDS sources of information to back up this claim?
Mormon doctrine is not even approved to be taught in church or by missionaries so why would you be quoting it here? In the MTC we are instructed not to use mormon doctrine.

Brother Heber said...

Heather
Mormon Doctrine was in every apartment I lived in during my mission. Many souls have been brought to Christ because I taught from it's pages.
In addition the book must be Doctrine since the word is in the title.

anonymous78 said...

Yeah Prez, it's clearly in D&C 132.

Stake Pres. said...

I never said that this was doctrinal, just that it was taught. Mormon Doctrine is not official church doctrine but it is referenced to in our current lesson manuals - so saying it is not approved to be taught in church is not quite accurate.

Just to be clear what I mean by that is I could find in a current manual on lds.org a reference to a quote or page in Mormon Doctrine. Let me know if you would like me to do this. If not I'll assume you trust me.

Aurora said...

I would also like a list of which apostles and prophets we no longer acknowledge as prophetic? It seems like we pretty much disregard what a lot of them say, but I never know which ones I can avoid quoting and which ones I can still reference.

I know Bruce R. McConkie tends to make a lot of people bristle. And Brigham Young....and Spencer W. Kimball.

Which are the 'safe' ones? Do they teach that in the MTC or is this something I could learn in a mission prep class at Sunday School?

Is there a way to tell when they are speaking 'as a prophet' and when they are only speaking 'as a man'. Do they say 'thus sayeth the Lord' before the prophet parts?

I'm confused! I want to only quote prophets, seers, and revelators, but after reading all of this debate I'm starting to wonder which ones we still listen to.

Thanks!

Brigham Taft Pratt said...

Daryl,

I must apologize if I offended you in anyway. Of course we do not need to rededicate LDS.org. That website is a direct line to the Brethren. I think this all just boils down to a misunderstanding. I am sure that the Brethren have received all kinds of questions over the years as to what is appropriate sexual behavior in marriage. The statements you quoted are clearly generalities that are meant to give direction on a general level. The Brethren avoided such general language when they gave the counsel they did with regards to oral sex. It is a serious enough offence that it warranted direct attention. In 1982 the prophet spoke very clearly on the matter. You may be too young to remember his words, but the Lord does not change my friend. I am thankful for blogs like this that help our young people dig deeper into the gospel.

ps. I think we may have some common ancestry. There are at least 7 thousand of us stemming from Brigham Young though, so you probably get that all of the time.

anonymous78 said...

Aurora,

Please reverence this talk for further clarity in obeying prophets:

http://lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

Lady Virginia of Devon said...

As Sister Pillinger says.. "LIKE!"

My sex life sucked! Big time! oh wait.. maybe that was small time. Well anyhoo.... he would never have oral sex with me. He'd get mad when I would try to do it to him! I once got a brazilian wax and he still wouldn't do it to me. What the heck was wrong with him?

He too would reference that specific letter.. as to why he wouldn't do it. It probably for that same reason why we always had sex in the same position for our entire marriage. BORING!!! I'm so happy that nevermos don't look it at it that way.... and also I say LIGHTS ON! Have some passion.. make it FUN!

Thank God we are divorcing. Oral IS moral :)

Heather said...

This is from an article printed in the January 1973 New Era- taken from LDS.org

Elder Bruce R. McConkie is quoting from Mormon Doctrine...

"Further along in the book under the heading of “Prophets” is another statement: “With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he ‘visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that “a prophet is always a prophet”; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.

Thus the opinions and views, even of a prophet, may contain error, unless those opinions and views were inspired by the Spirit. Inspired scripture or statements should be accepted as such. We have this problem, however. Paul was one of the greatest theologian-prophets of all the ages, but he had some opinions that weren’t in complete accord with the Lord’s feelings, and he wrote some of them down in his epistles. But being wise and discreet, he labeled them as such. He said, “This is what I think.” When he got through telling that, he said, “Now this is what the Lord thinks.” Paul’s views, his private opinions, were not as perfect as they might have been.

Prophets are men, and when they act by the Spirit of inspiration, what they say is the voice of God; but still they are mortal and they are entitled to and do have private opinions. Because of the great wisdom and judgment of these men, their views may be as good as mortal men can have, but unless they are inspired, unless they are in accordance with the revelations, they are subject to error on the same basis as the views of anyone else in the Church."

We need not wonder vainly if the General Authorities are speaking by the Spirit of inspiration or not—we can discover for certain. I remind you that one of Joseph Smith’s famous statements is to this effect: “The Lord will not reveal anything to Joseph that he will not reveal to the Twelve or to the least and last member of the Church

That’s perfect. That’s the same doctrine that Paul taught. Paul said, “Ye may all prophesy.” He said, “Covet to prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:31, 39). The whole membership of the Church, the whole body of the Church is supposed to receive revelation. It’s not reserved for a select few, the missionaries, or the bishops. We ought to get revelation. We all ought to be as the apostles and prophets.

End quote

Anonymous said...

Cool Heather. But that only works when they say, "this is my view" or "this is the Lord's view".


The real worst part is when they LATER say, oh ignore that, that doesn't apply ANYMORE (if they even tell us!).

How can a person EVER know when they speak as a man or as God.

One thing is certain, it always works to their favor!

Lisa said...

There is a reason it is called the Missionary Position and no other authorized position has such a righteous sounding name.

Every member a missionary!

(then again, does this designation unwittingly encourage our full-time missionaries to believe it is the best choice when they should be thinking only of saving pure and righteous soles?)

Anonymous said...

Lisa don't you mean souls?

Carolyn said...

The simple way of knowing whether a prophet is speaking as a prophet or not, is that if it is currently in favour, they are speaking as a prophet. When it falls out of favour, then they were speaking as a man. And yes, I know that things like homosexuality would not be considered to be "in favour" in the general community, but the mormon community in general is not ready to accept it. Therefore, the current leadership will preach against it. And then, perhaps in 50 years or so, the leadership will say they have received a revelation and that it is now OK. And that the current prophets were just speaking as men, or perhaps that the time was not right.
And any arguments you want to bring up against this, just substitute the word "black" for homosexual, and you will see that this has all been done before.
It's not inspiration that drives the church, it is politics. The temple changed after they conducted that poll(I remember filling in the questionnaire myself) about what people felt about the temple. When it came back resoundingly that promising to disembowel yourself was not a highlight for most of us on our wedding day, they suddenly removed the death oaths. There are many other changes, too many to go into. But they have all been brought to pass by leadership trying to keep the church palatable to the members. So when it becomes palatable to the majority of members for homosexuality to be OK, it will be.

Aurora said...

Every little girl dreams of the day when she can promise to disembowel herself on her most special of days.

erin_josephine said...

I normally don’t write on these issues, though I do have some interesting facts to add to this one. Despite the huge male ego, you may be surprised and dismayed to hear that orgasm eludes 75% of women via straight (normal intercourse) without oral stimulation the majority of women are just having sex and faking it for you.
Interestingly, My husband and I attended an adult only Stake Conference in SA TX nine years ago where the president spoke and skirted this topic during a large portion of his talk. Upon leaving the church building my husband said “What do you suppose he was referring to?” I brought up what my mother had told me about the letter you write about, and how back then members were asked about the practice, and told it was to be refrained from and unnatural.
We went home (a very crazy ride let me tell you). He searched every church archive online he could find to no avail, NOTHING to be found on the matter there. This led to the determination of finding this as I knew my mother didn’t lie to me. Oh, I found it alright, and A LOT of other crazy stuff the church now sweeps under their dirty carpet of lies. Our exit letter should have started with. YOU LIE and change your minds with the weather, and there is zero truth to your organization. It’s a pure work of deceit and fraud. Oral sex gave me my wings, knowledge and life back. Oh, and Sundays off and a 10% raise. GOD I LOVE ORAL SEX!!!

Carolyn said...

@Erin - yes, it was basically because of the lies that I left. I was shocked to discover that my daughter (late teens) didn't know anything about polygamy. And then to read the SS manual for JS and BY, and find that there was NO MENTION of polygamy. That showed me that they knew it was wrong and were trying to cover it up. Along with a whole heap of other things, I was outta there!

Anonymous said...

Is there a way to get more information on that temple poll? Where was I? I hope I can see it still.

Anonymous said...

Thx for your comments erin. Boy can I relate! Btw, only 20% women climax through intercourse, not 25%.

Anonymous said...

I don't even hold hands with my wife. I tell her I love her via mail and by sleeping in a different room.

LDS leaders are champions in brain diarrea!

TuNeCedeMalis said...

I love this blog...

anonymous78 said...

I remember that temple poll as well, I didn't fill it out was to young at the time but I remember my parents talking about it.
Anonymous, this is the best I've been able to find so far:
http://mormonthink.com/templeweb.htm#whychanged

anonymous78 said...

TuNeCedeMalis-

I do too, it is one of my favorites! I would love to meet the genius behind it one day.

Sister Paternoster said...

Try living with the genius all the time :)

Bill is a wonderful husband and father. He takes the church very seriously (sometimes a little too seriously, sorry Bill but you do). His dedication to his callings through out his service in the church has been a great example to our children and I know we have been blessed as a family as we have tried to support him.

anonymous78 said...

You are a saint in and of yourself Sister Pasternoster, I don't know if I could live with such greatness everyday!! I know I often don't appreciate my own husband enough because quite honestly I don't always understand him. You're a great example to us all.

Lisa said...

anonymous: souls? what kind of word is that? i meant what i wrote.

Sweet Sister Paternoster: you must be even more righteous. we all know how dedicated the women in the church are, and more those who have to sacrifice time with their righteous priesthood holders to to such awesome callings. i'll bet the time alone with all the kids has only made your life better! You are Truly a Mother Who Knows.

Just think of how blessed you will be! how blessed you are! oh, Sister, I don't even feel righteous enough to think of it. You will surely be a Queen.

Anonymous said...

Soles noted. It makes more sense.

Amy Hoffmann said...

I'm appalled at the anti-mormons here who say that they didn't know all of the history of the church.

The USEFUL history of the church was taught to me every Sunday and every Tuesday night at YW. I served a mission, I have been YW Pres. and also in the RS Pres.

It's true what the prophets have said...ALL truths are NOT helpful to ones testimony. I didn't know that Joseph was a polygamist until after my 33 birthday, I didn't know the temple ceremony came from the Mason's and I didn't know that the Book of Abraham wasn't translated properly. BUT...my knowledge of this history happened in the LORD'S time. If I had known the history of the church BEFORE I gave myself, my marriage, my children and ten percent of my income and all my time and talents to the church...I would never have it in my life...THEN WHERE WOULD I BE???

The Lord hides some truths from us...it is the prophets and apostles choice as to which truths are useful and which are not. THIS is why it is SO important we look to these wise men.

Donny said...

Dear President-

Can I just say that Aurora is wise beyond her years. Every time I see her picture and read her wise counsel, I feel like I would like to engage in unnatural, impure and unholy practices with her. I will be scheduling an appointment so I can come meet with you and repent of my impure thoughts.

Stake Pres. said...

Please do that Donny. Such beauty surely hasn't been seen since the days of old when Abrahams wife walked the earth. Please sing "Shall the Youth of Zion Falter" or another favourite hymn to keep your mind off her.

Steve said...

It saddens me that my people put so much faith in mortal men to think that they will never lead you astray.

The scriptures (i.e. JST Mark 9:40-48, 1 Nephi 21:1, D&C 107:82-84) indicate that a prophet may and will lead us astray and what our responsibility is regarding such. Our history is full of examples of members of the FP Qo12 who have fallen. The Lord commands us to not trust in the arm of flesh. And Joseph stated the following in the Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel 18—said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church—that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls—applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall—that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

Brothers and sisters, the Lord has given us the spirit of liberty. Speaking for myself, I am too often tempted to look to someone else, other than Him, for guidance. We need to be like Moses and the 70 who climbed the mount to commune with Him personally, instead of the multitude who were afraid of so doing.

Steve

Donny said...

Steve-

Thank you for your wise words. If only it was so simple for me. I wish I had some sort of magical seer stone I could place into my hat to help me determine if a prophet is speaking from the lord or as a man.

anonymous78 said...

Didn't Joseph (maybe it was Brigham) say we would all one day have our own stone? I look forward to that day.

Ryan said...

Rejoice Donny and Anonymous 78, The time has come! We do have our own Seer stone...Even President Paternoster! And this blog is the hat that we can stick our head into to receive inspiration and know the truth. (No word yet on what, or who, will be our divining rod like the one Oliver Cowdery received from the Lord.)

I prayed for wisdom and felt the holy spirit of promise testify that even though modern prophets can and apparently on January 5, 1982 will for various reasons (probably as a test to see who really has the holy ghost) lead us astray...President Paternoster will never ever lead the church astray!

Anonymous said...

I don't believe that it is appropriate to include the people who you were interviewing. If you were a professional such as a Doctor you could easily be sued. I also believe in a private setting such as a temple recommend interview that it is your duty to not blog about it. You are an ignorant fool for blogging this on the internet.

Anonymous said...

A visual historic chart of all the doctrinal changes coupled with the prophesies that haven't come "true yet" and when the prophet spoke as a prophet then it was later said he spoke as a man would shed a lot of light.

Where can I get one?

anonymous78 said...

"Rejoice Donny and Anonymous 78, The time has come! We do have our own Seer stone...Even President Paternoster!"

Oh my you are correct, why didn't I see this before! The windows of heaven are actually the "Windows" created by Bill Gates and used for the church. For surely they would not be used for any other purpose but to progress the work of God.

Donny said...

Pres-

I will schedule my personal interview posthaste. In the meantime, I can't help but feel that Aurora is mostly to blame for my impure looks, what with her extremely attractive appearance and exceeding wisdom. I think I should meet with her to help her overcome these weaknesses. May I suggest the following:

1. Training garments - these will greatly help reduce her attractiveness while preparing her for someday receiving full time garments.

2. she should undertake other efforts to reduce her overall beauty, including putting absolutely no effort into her physical appearance.

3. Restrictions on her internet accounts so she cannot comment on your brilliant posts. We both know a woman should be seen and not heard.

I think after I have outlined the above to her, she will bow her head and say yes, and then she will continue to bob her head up and down in a motion of agreeance until I am left satisfied and smiling and will full assurance that she will forthwith hearken until the counsel of the priesthood.

Donny said...

*impure thoughts

a man Zed said...

If I might make a modest proposal: swift adoption of this letter and Pres Paternoster's prayerful explanation in a lesson plan. Maybe it could serve as teaching material for home teachers or visiting teachers.

I heard about Pres Paternoster's blog on FaceBook's Bloggernacle group. I had no idea what level of inspiration and faith was in store!

I felt The Holy Spirit very strongly as I read Pres Paternoster's words. I'm surprised that these plain and precious truths are not discussed in my Elder's Quorum meeting or GD class more often.

Words cannot express the burning in my bosom as I felt the truth of these words! Woe to them who deny the promptings of the Most High!

Anonymous said...

You know - each person and religion has their own beliefs. I am not going to comment on the content, but the fact that you are naming names. I truly hope that those are made up names you are using. I would hate to think that a couple would come to you about such a sacred and touchy topic as that and you are naming their names and the private discussion is being used to promote - what? You as a stake president and your understanding on topics? The church?

Whatever this is - it has been handled very poorly. If I were the couple it would embarrass and humiliate me to see this public display of their confidence it could and probably would turn me away from you as the stake president and possible the church.

There is a proper and improper way to deal with situations and express your thoughts on them. Sharing names is definitely not cool!

So your entire story has gone in one ear here and out the other because it was so tactlessly dealt with. If you are in a position of leadership you really should stop and think about what you put out to the world to read before you do so. It is not about YOU... this is about people and their lives.

Stake Pres. said...

a Man Zed I think that is a wonderful idea.

Anonymous, thank you for your feedback. All names of persons I interact with on this blog have been altered.

Cindy said...

President Paternoster never uses real names, he has indicated this before and has clarified it here in the comment section. Yes this is a sensitive issue but were it not for the dedication of President Paternoster and many like him we would be left with out the proper direction and would be left to make choices in ignorance. Ignorance is bliss and if you and many others who have commented on here want to go that route fine. But there are many others here who would like to know about the things President Paternoster raises on his blog. We should not shy away from the gospel and all that is encompasses. Whether you want to head his council and the council of the leaders he gets his guidance from is up to you.
I am an active temple recommend holder who faithfully (well I try my best) holds a calling. I know that there are many on here who are mocking the church through President Paternosters posts, to them I say, go ahead and mock. God never said it would be easy, we are not on this earth to have our own way but to follow his way. We are blessed to have men past and present to help us understand the will of God. Do they get it right every time? Probably not. Each person needs to decide for themselves what feels right to them but if your way is in contrast with what the leaders are saying you can be rest assured that you are the exception to the rule!

Stake Pres. said...

Thank you Cindy. I want you to know that your faith promoting comments never fail to uplift and edify me.

Anonymous said...

Why name names then? Why not just say Jane Doe and John Smith? It really confuses a person who has come here for the first time such as myself. Or put a disclaimer at the top. The subject just gets lost because of the shock of hearing some person's name.

Also, there may be a person out there with the names you listed and if they ran across your story would be a bit flabbergasted. I suggest you do something like that... Just a thought.

Spencer said...

Perhaps Bill was a little too trusting that those who read his blog and comments would read his blog and comments, or be mature enough to suspend judgment until they have confirmed their assumptions.

Sister McCulloch said...

My this is embarrassing, President, just wanted to let you know we are doing fine and following your counsel, I appear to have lost your email but I remembered you had a blog to touch the hearts of the saints online like the prophets suggested.

I'm glad sharing our experience has received such a great response from others, it often difficult to talk about personal concerns, I am comforted knowing we have helped so many. See you in a few weeks.

Stake Pres. said...

I look forward to seeing you too Sister Jones.

Stake Pres. said...

I mean McCulloch

Sister McCulloch said...

Brother McCulloch sends his love as well. Thank you for all that you do, we truly appreciate your concern.

Please tell your wife to bring that wonderful fruit salad we love so much to the stake luncheon after the service project. She always prepares the most wonderful dishes.

Sister Paternoster said...

Oh you are too kind. I will be happy to bring it.

Sister McCulloch said...

I would sure like to know your culinary secrets, Sister Pasternoster, maybe we could get together this weekend and swap recipes?

Sister McCulloch said...

Little Ruby will need a nap first of course, being a new mum is so difficult. I admire you so much Cathryn, please give me a call when you get a moment.

Sister Paternoster said...

I will ring you in just a few minutes, just let me finish my daily scripture reading and get these muffins out of the oven.

Sister McCulloch said...

Thank you! It's really been a long day and I could use a listening ear.

Sorry for posting so much on your blog President, I haven't been sleeping well and seem to forget or misplace everything. I will get your email address from Cathryn again.

Cindy said...

Thank-you President, that was a very kind thing for you to say.

Anonymous I haven't been following this blog for very long (I actually only stumbled across it while doing some research for a talk) and I agree it is a bit confusing. I think the disclaimer is a good idea.

I have a feeling that the presidents name is also a pseudo name. This would make sense as that would protect the rights of confidentiality of those in his stake, if he really is a stake president. Some seem to content that issue. For me it really doesn't matter. I feel like I'm finally getting some answers here and that's all that matters to me.

I knew there was a stigma with oral sex (and french/oral kissing prior to marriage even). I was first made aware of it as a young women but no one ever discussed where this information was coming from. Many of the posts deal with teachings that we hear growing up but with out the full story. I for one am grateful for the references that President Paternoster has provided.

Some on here have been bold enough to say that anything a past president has taught can just be disregarded. I disagree, why else would we have spent years in Sunday school using the teachings from our prophets manuals.

I do think that each person has the right to personal revelation and that they should decide for themselves what they feel is right or not but how can someone do that with out all the information? In my opinion Sunday school just isn't equipped to do that. Just as the word of wisdom was given for the weakest of the saints so similarly is Sunday school.

For those of us who wish to engage in deeper doctrine I believe we need to go outside the walls of the church class room to find it. This is why there are blogs and forum with people willing to create additional gospel discussions.

I don't understand why some people here need to be so immature about the information this blog provides. I do not think President Paternoster is an anti-Mormon. I think he is most likely someone who has held leadership positions (probably in stake presidency and bishopric) who truly cares about this church. His posts probably come from his years of experiences with-in the church. Anti-Mormons (from what I've been told) just spread lies and distort truth and are generally very angry. In my opinion this blog does not fit that profile. Why would they invest as much effort as Presdent pasternoster has in providing the information he has on this blog? They wouldn't.

Exactly what the authors agenda is I'm not sure but that’s besides the point. Each person is going to take the information he provides and do something different with it. I've decided to take it an learn from it. What do you decide?

Anonymous said...

Here's what I take from it: this guy is funny, but he's not a Church leader. It's hilarious to watch LDS folks get fired up on these comments.

This site is a spoof. It's clever, but don't get too excited (no pun intended) over what you read. It IS interesting that the post about oral sex gets SO MANY replies.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 321   Newer› Newest»